MILK ADULTERATION

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2437, 16 April 1915, Page 6

MILK ADULTERATION

DRASTIC STEPS RENEWAL OF LICENSE REFUSED. The question of milk adulteration was before the City Council last night, brought up by the following report of the Public Health Committee:—Tho committee have- to report that they have considered certain evidence submitted with reference to the conviction of a dairy man for adulteration of milk, and in view of the seriousness of the case have to recommend that a renewal of his license be not granted. But in order that no undue hardship may be inllicted upon the offender, the committee recommend that no action be taken against him for three months, in order to enable him to dispose of his business." Councillor J. Godber, the chairman of the committee, said that the dairyman referred to was fined £20 for the offence. He was railed before the committee, and admitted that he added annatto. The matter was postponed till a report from the Public Health Department was received, and this report was so drastic. that they decided on the action covered by their recommendation to the council.' He was satisfied no committee would take any other course, • but ill order that, fairness would be done he would amend tie recommendation, and move that the matter bo held over iill next meeting of tho committee.

Councillor R. Fletcher thought that this was a matter in which they should take drastio steps. The council was in duty bound to pass the recommendation as before the council, and not jwstpone it till the next council came in. He was on tho committee, a.nd-he objeoted to tho clause being hung up. They had had evidence time after time of adulteration of milk', and this man had been selling from 40 to 45 gallons of water as milk! every day. The evidence had been most damning. ,

Councillor W. H. P. Barber thought that the committee was lenient in. allowing the man to go on for three months. He was surprised that Councillor Godber should suggest he should have a further opportunity of coming before the nest council. He would move as an amendment' that only one month should be allowed the man in which to dispose. of his business Councillor Godber read from the report which had been received, and showed that the offender had been making a profit of £2 per day out of water. He how moved the adoption of the report as it stood. Councillor Hindma-rsh seconded tho amendment to reduce the time to one month in which to allow the disposal of the business. It was the _ method of robbers, he said, this action, but some of those men were at the head of every church movement in the city. The man was guilty of the most atrocious form of theft. The council should have do mercy on those men. If they knew they would get no license after a conviction it would be a good thing. Councillor R. A. Wright supported the proposal to give the man threß months' time. The punishment was very severe. Councillor Buddie asked what, consideration . the man was entitled to ? Ho knew he was doing wrong, and he had brought the hard treatment on himself. The publio had to be safeguarded, and he did not see why he should be granted any time at all. Councillor M. F.' Luckio also took the view that no time should be allowed the man. If the man had been in .any other lino of business he would probably have been imprisoned as well as fined. Councillor J. Fuller' thought they should give the man a chance to sell his business.' The man was not so much to blame as the council, the Government, and the Magistrates. The men were not properly checked. He had a contempt for the man in question, but he appealed to councillors "not to bo inflamed."

Councillor E. Tregear said the man who adulterated milk was a criminal, and was not entitled to any considera--tion or tenderness. He would vote that no time should be allowed the man. Councillor G. Frost thought they would be justified in giving the man not a moment's notice. Councillor Godber said that he wanted to remove any misapprehension that he was in favour of the man being allowed to continue.' The Public Health Committee, he pointed out, had done a good deal in tho past, and if ho was returned to the council he would fur*, thor press the work on. Councillor G. Thompson thought that the man would not be too severely punished if he was given a month to sottie his business. Councillor Barber, with the consent of his seconder, withdrew his amendment, and Councillor Thompson moved an amendment to the effect that no time should .be allowed the man, in accordance with the suggestion of Councillor Buddie. The Mayor seconded this amendment, and spoke strongly on tho subject. He endorsed all that had been said in the interests of protecting the community, and in the interests of the children. Councillor Atkinson said that he was pleased at the strong stand taken by the councillors. . . Finally, the committee's recommendation. as amended, namely, all the words after "granted," being struck out, was carried. Tho report of the District Health Officer on tho adulterated milk in question said that the analyst's certificate showed one sample contained annatto and 29 per cent, of water. Another sample showed annatto and 23.6 per cent, of water. Another sample contained annatto and 20 per. cent, of wctar. At the time the samples were taken in 1914, the amount of milk the man was dealing with, and . the amount of added'water, gave him aolcar illicit profit of £2 per dap.